Actual Quotes from OBAMA book

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:HvFsk.258755$TT4.202838@attbi_s22...
I find it rather funny how you regard the chubby intern. First she was
"cute", now it's "sweet". Obviously you view young women as just an
object of your own desire and yet you want to preach women's rights in
the same breath. You've been told numerous times that Lewinsky was no
victim, yet you refuse to believe it despite the overwhelming evidence
presented publically for months. So what's the reason for this?
Ignorance can not explain it anymore. It's either rampant stupidity or
perhaps you have one or two fantasies in which you just can't quite let
go. I'm beginning to suspect the latter. You are more like Clinton than
you realize, but you just don't have the charisma to act on your urges,
and perhaps that's what bothers you the most.

Gosh, you are a singularly unpleasant twit, aren't you?

So it's OK for you to analize what I believe, but you can't handle
reciprocation? One of the concepts I learned as a young lad was, "don't
dish it out if you can't take it." You would do well to learn that lesson,
especially since you have a tough time facing the truth. Furthermore I
never engaged in name calling, so try taking a good hard look in the mirror
sometime. You might be surprised at what you find.

For a few moments, this group actually showed signs of intelligent life in
the form of a real, legitimate (if off-topic) debate. Alas, I should have
known that it would quickly slip back into this sort of bitter blather.

You continually repeat what can only be described as unsubstantiated
nonsense and you have the nerve to question someone else's intelligence? At
least you are good for a chuckle. You may want to reconsider advertising
your business at the end of all your posts. You aren't a very good pitch
man.

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I notice that people who take an interest in where other people stick their
jiggly parts are themselves fairly interesting.

Why, thank you... I think? :-))

on 8/25/2008 5:07 PM Mike said the following:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:HvFsk.258755$TT4.202838@attbi_s22...
I find it rather funny how you regard the chubby intern. First she
was "cute", now it's "sweet". Obviously you view young women as just
an object of your own desire and yet you want to preach women's
rights in the same breath. You've been told numerous times that
Lewinsky was no victim, yet you refuse to believe it despite the
overwhelming evidence presented publically for months. So what's the
reason for this? Ignorance can not explain it anymore. It's either
rampant stupidity or perhaps you have one or two fantasies in which
you just can't quite let go. I'm beginning to suspect the latter.
You are more like Clinton than you realize, but you just don't have
the charisma to act on your urges, and perhaps that's what bothers
you the most.

Gosh, you are a singularly unpleasant twit, aren't you?

So it's OK for you to analize what I believe, but you can't handle
reciprocation? One of the concepts I learned as a young lad was, "don't
dish it out if you can't take it." You would do well to learn that
lesson, especially since you have a tough time facing the truth.
Furthermore I never engaged in name calling, so try taking a good hard
look in the mirror sometime. You might be surprised at what you find.

For a few moments, this group actually showed signs of intelligent
life in the form of a real, legitimate (if off-topic) debate. Alas, I
should have known that it would quickly slip back into this sort of
bitter blather.

You continually repeat what can only be described as unsubstantiated
nonsense and you have the nerve to question someone else's
intelligence? At least you are good for a chuckle. You may want to
reconsider advertising your business at the end of all your posts. You
aren't a very good pitch man.

Actually, he's a class-A douchebag. But who's counting?

"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:

There was no perjury. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. If
you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better
educate yourself before you comment.


To say he wasn't indicted is somewhat misleading. He was never indicted
because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice President.

False.

The vote by the house to impeach was the indictment.

False. Impeachment and subsequent trial in the Senate can never result in
criminal penalties.

To think that Starr couldn't have taken what he had and gotten an
indictment from any grand jury in the land shows a huge level of
misunderstanding how grand juries work.

You think a sitting president can't be indicted and you pretend to be an
expert on grand juries?

As has been said a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.

And you think that's what makes a "good" prosecutor?

They can also get disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct, sued, and in some
cases even held criminally responsible for their actions as I'm sure Ken
Starr well understood. Try looking up the name Michael Nifong sometime.

Getting a conviction is another thing entirely. I remember when either the
Starr Report was published. I read through and there was one place where a
crime had clearly been committed and where there should have been a
conviction. There was testimony from Clinton's secretary that Clinton told
her to lie to the grand jury and it was very specific.

False.

If you really think there was a criminal case against Clinton, consider how
the entire matter was closed on Clinton's last day of office. Independent
Counsel Robert Ray dismissed all charges in exchange for Clinton's admission
that he had made misleading statements during the Paula Jones deposition
(Which Clinton had already done during the GJ proceedings) and a 5 year
suspension of his law license (that he had no intention of using anyway and
still hasn't renewed to this day). So the sum total of the entire
Independent Counsel investigation which lasted the better part of a decade
and cost $100 million amounted to exactly squat, and that doesn't even count
the numerous congressional investigations. No major administration officials
were ever so much as indicted as a result. Think about that for a moment
and consider everything alleged in those investigations. Whitewater,
Travelgate, FBI files, Vince Foster, and destroying evidence. Then ask
yourself if you can honestly and rationally say Clinton wasn't the victim of
a term long witch hunt. Anything Clinton did wrong pales in comparison to
what was done to him by the other side. That was the travesty of the whole
affair and that was the blight on American politics.

There are those who believe the Clintons were guilty of all the allegations
against them. There are other looneys who believe the Clintons murdered
Vince Foster(and at least 33 other people), murdered the children at Waco,
was responsible for the OKC bombing, the TWA 800 bombing, and thousands of
other equally whacky bits of nonsense. Believe what you want to believe,
just don't start thinking you can convince others who are more rational when
the facts tell a different story.

"FREEDOM-OF-SPEECH" wrote in message
...
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Mike wrote:

There was no perjury. Clinton was never convicted or even so much as
indicted for any such crime, or any other crime for that matter. If
you're not familiar with the facts of the situation, you should better
educate yourself before you comment.


To say he wasn't indicted is somewhat misleading. He was never indicted
because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice President. The vote
by the house to impeach was the indictment. To think that Starr couldn't
have taken what he had and gotten an indictment from any grand jury in
the land shows a huge level of misunderstanding how grand juries work. As
has been said a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. Getting a
conviction is another thing entirely. I remember when either the Starr
Report was published. I read through and there was one place where a
crime had clearly been committed and where there should have been a
conviction. There was testimony from Clinton's secretary that Clinton
told her to lie to the grand jury and it was very specific.


First Mike defends FAA Management goons while belittling the FAA workers
who keep those tubes of people from becoming a pink mist and THEN he
defends Bill Clinton!?!?!?!?

You're an idiot.


Fess up Mike are you a closet Weenie Puffer??
San FAGcisco Rump Ranger perhaps??
Fess up boy

Are you looking for a date?

Freud said hostility towards homosexuality is simply a defense mechanism
against the subject's own homosexual desires.

It's amazing how much you reveal about yourself, isn't it, GW?

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:29:04 -0400, John Smith wrote these lies, denials,
arrogant assertions, erroneous presuppositions, and/or obfuscations:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I notice that people who take an interest in where other people stick
their jiggly parts are themselves fairly interesting.

Why, thank you... I think? :-))

So, are you a top, or a bottom?

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
TEH USENETS BULLIE
http://www.runescape.com/
Join my RuneScape clan!
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pre...abal/index.php
Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet
And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel

Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of PorchMonkey4Life
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/

Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008
Hammer of Thor, July 2008

"Not supporting me is equivalent to forfeiting your own rights." --
John D. Wentzky: Warrior For Your Freedumb! Message-ID:


"You cognatatively challenged fool!" -- According to Agamemnon, Stephen
Wilson is, apparently, highly ignorant about cognates, and so is anyone
who dares to disagree with him, in Message-ID:


"Is it still necrophilia if I'm conscious?" -- Owen Harper, "Dead Man
Walking", Torchwood (20/207)

"Mike" wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote:
He was never
indicted because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice
President.

False.

I thought that was still being debated by constitutional scholars? Has
any sitting President or Vice President ever been indicted? Not even
Agnew was indicted while he was VP:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A96F9582 60

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Mike" wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote:
He was never
indicted because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice
President.

False.

I thought that was still being debated by constitutional scholars? Has
any sitting President or Vice President ever been indicted? Not even
Agnew was indicted while he was VP:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A96F9582 60

In effect, Agnew was indicted. The web page you referenced states Agnew
wasn't indicted and received an information instead, however the only way a
person can be charged by an information is if they waive their right to a
Grand Jury. What the story doesn't say is that Agnew tried to use the
argument that he couldn't be indicted per the Constitution, and he KNEW that
argument was going to fail. He also knew the Grand Jury was going to indict
him as the case against him was overwhelming. To say Agnew wasn't indicted
is very misleading.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:WKxsk.258222$TT4.86817@attbi_s22:

Nothing. Hence, the "OT" (Off Topic) subject heading.

IOW just another way for you to spam.

OMG! Is that a Bertie post accusing someone of spamming this group by
discussing politics!? ROTFLMAO!


Nope, i amm accusing you of spamming because you contiually advertise
your
flea pit hotel in every poast you make, you fjukkkwit.


Bertie

Ok, so I'm accusing you of spamming cuz you won't shut the **** up. Spamwit.

"Mike" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Mike" wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote:
He was never
indicted because you can't indict a sitting President or Vice
President.

False.

I thought that was still being debated by constitutional scholars?
Has any sitting President or Vice President ever been indicted? Not
even Agnew was indicted while he was VP:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...73BF935A35751C
0A96F958260

In effect, Agnew was indicted.

Hmmm. Not sure how I could have presented any clearer evidence except by
one who was intimately familiar with the sequence of events. He does not
appear to have been indicted while sitting as VP.

The web page you referenced states
Agnew wasn't indicted and received an information instead, however the
only way a person can be charged by an information is if they waive
their right to a Grand Jury.

An observation irrelevant to the issue of indictment. The same reasoning
you use that denies any relation, even as possible analogs, between
indictment and impeachment would seem to deny any relation between an
information and an indictment. To do otherwise would be an exercise in
special pleading.

What the story doesn't say is that Agnew
tried to use the argument that he couldn't be indicted per the
Constitution, and he KNEW that argument was going to fail. He also
knew the Grand Jury was going to indict him as the case against him
was overwhelming. To say Agnew wasn't indicted is very misleading.

Prognostication is no substitute for facts and actual events. I'm mildly
surprised you used the "misleading" line as that is an appeal you've
shown no quarter when made by others.

All that said, since Aaron Burr was indicted while still VP for the
murder of Alexander Hamilton (in two states, no less), that argument
appears to have been settled for some time. ;-) Not sure why you didn't
bring Burr up sooner as a counterpoint to my mention of Agnew. The Agnew
case was ambiguous - Burr wasn't. :-)

Ah - but can a sitting president be indicted? Even if he could be, the
constitution grants him the power of pardon - so he could pardon himself!
You should note that the constitution explicitly excludes pardons for
impeachments, so that appears to make it clear that indictment of a
sitting president is a concept void of utility. He first has to be
removed by impeachment. The DoJ argued similarly in 2000 in this long
analysis:

http://www.justice.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm

"Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune
from indictment and criminal prosecution."